Texas' restrictive abortion law takes effect after SCOTUS deadline to stop it passes.

[Bird of Prey]

You very clearly don't understand even the basics of it.

Creation would first have to be proven for anyone to "unprove" it, and it obviously has not been.

Ahh. Father Metzger knew a lot about evolution as well as Creationism. I was a very smart student and learned a lot about both theories. Your opinion about only Creationism having to be "proven" and Evolution being proved as the reason for the existence of human beings is humorous.

[natepro]

I quit drinking a couple of years ago. But yeah, I enjoyed quite a few pints of various ales including Sam Adams. But beer was only a small portion of Sam Adams genius. He was truly one of the most gifted writers I have ever read.

No ****, but "I'll bet you enjoy plenty of Sam Adams, by which I mean the beer but, who knows, maybe you like his writing too" isn't much of a ****ing play on words, is it?

[natepro]

Ahh. Father Metzger knew a lot about evolution as well as Creationism. I was a very smart student and learned a lot about both theories. Your opinion about only Creationism having to be "proven" and Evolution being proved as the reason for the existence of human beings is humorous.

Nowhere did I say that "only Creationism has to be proven." You're literally quoting the post, how can you still make up things that aren't in it?

[natepro]

Guess what, nate. In virtually all of my posts, I re-read the post within a few minutes and edit them where necessary and on occasion I add a bit of further explanation or add something i forgot when typing the original. And I do not add "pages" of new material. Nor do I selectively edit source material that I copy in order to misconstrue the material itself. Don't imply that I do because that is just ********.

I didn't say you add "pages of new material" you're quoting the post again and still making up things that are in it how are you this bad at using a message board

[spliff(TONE)]

Guess what, nate. In virtually all of my posts, I re-read the post within a few minutes and edit them where necessary and on occasion I add a bit of further explanation or add something i forgot when typing the original. And I do not add "pages" of new material. Nor do I selectively edit source material that I copy in order to misconstrue the material itself. Don't imply that I do because that is just ********.

What's the strategy behind reposting the same braindead nonsense four posts in a row?

[dbroncos78087]

I could say that the previous court rulings were based solely on the liberal make-up of the Court itself. As for the present Court not know what "precedent" even means. That just means that the liberals hate the make-up of the present court. Too bleeping bad and just sour grapes.

And you could be right about previous liberal courts. We have a 6-3 Republican court right now. I don’t pretend that we have 9 unpolitical judges. They were appointed for their political leanings. We have better and better ways of determining how an appointee will rule. Statistical analysis ain’t just for baseball. Trump’s three picks were chosen to rule how the Republican Party would like. Just like the Democratic choices were and the others before them.

[brett05]

And you could be right about previous liberal courts. We have a 6-3 Republican court right now. I don’t pretend that we have 9 unpolitical judges. They were appointed for their political leanings. We have better and better ways of determining how an appointee will rule. Statistical analysis ain’t just for baseball. Trump’s three picks were chosen to rule how the Republican Party would like. Just like the Democratic choices were and the others before them.

Except the Republican judges often show independence though there are a couple of exceptions. Can't be said for the Democratic judges.

[natepro]

Except the Republican judges often show independence though there are a couple of exceptions. Can't be said for the Democratic judges.

[WES445]

lolololololllloo

[catman]

Nate, I have found the answer you so dearly wanted to hide. In post #2052 of this thread, you said that a fetus becomes a baby (hence becomes human) "When it's born". Until then, it has no rights to anything -- hence your feticidal beliefs.
In post # 2059, you said
"Republican, pro-life legislatures love passing laws like that so future pro-life arguments can point to them as reason why the fetus and pregnant person should be treated as separate legal entities. There's a reason that doesn't happen in every state."

You believe in feticide. You have said so in multiple posts.
Own your statement.

[natepro]

Nate, I have found the answer you so dearly wanted to hide. In post #2052 of this thread, you said that a fetus becomes a baby (hence becomes human) "When it's born". Until then, it has no rights to anything -- hence your feticidal beliefs.
In post # 2059, you said
"Republican, pro-life legislatures love passing laws like that so future pro-life arguments can point to them as reason why the fetus and pregnant person should be treated as separate legal entities. There's a reason that doesn't happen in every state."

You believe in feticide. You have said so in multiple posts.
Own your statement.

That is not saying it's not a human. Keep trying.

[natepro]

I'm going to help you out here, since you've apparently decided that you're going to try to twist anything into me saying a fetus isn't human.

This is me saying how little I care about the "is it human" question:

I really don't give a **** if you call it a life or human or blather on about it's DNA, it's all irrelevant. At no point do you have the right to use someone else's body against their will. We all know this instinctively from an early age. There's a reason laws don't stop abortions, and unsafe conditions don't stop abortions. There's a reason people died trying to have an abortion despite knowing that that was a possible outcome. We know that our body is ours and does not belong to anyone else.

It's the same reason why there are so many negative outcomes associated with being denied an abortion.

All the rest of this is just red herring ********.

And saying it again:

This human being/not a human being **** is a giant, irrelevant, red herring.

Human beings do not have a right to use someone else's body against their will. Simple as that. You can call it a human being all you want, but that doesn't magically grant it rights that no one else has.

And saying it again:

There is just no reason to keep being sidetracked by these red herrings.

Not only have I not said a fetus is not human, I have repeatedly said it is a red herring that I actively do not care about.

I'll await your apology for yet again making up something I didn't say

[catman]

That is not saying it's not a human. Keep trying.

Own your statement and stop whining. Deflecting will not help you.
You are a troll that makes bold statements and refuses to acknowledge them, let alone back them.

[catman]

That is not saying it's not a human. Keep trying.

If a fetus is human, it has rights. Among those rights is the right to live, guaranteed by the constitution.
Either you have been lying all along by saying that fetuses have no rights or you are lying here.
Either way, you are lying.
Own your feticidal statements.

[natepro]

If a fetus is human, it has rights. Among those rights is the right to live, guaranteed by the constitution.
Either you have been lying all along by saying that fetuses have no rights or you are lying here.
Either way, you are lying.
Own your feticidal statements.

When do humans have the right to use someone else's body against their will? I don't have that right. Do you?